Elizabeth Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 It seems to me that one of the biggest problems is how the entire planning system is geared towards developers and helping them generate profits by ripping off individuals once they have forced the hand of Council. From my point of view this is not a side effect how the system has been set up to promote a particular business sectors interests. The number of building blocks is very low, and its almost impossible and incredibly costly to get change of use for land, for which reason, you can't afford to buy the land on the punt without planning permission, but if the meagre little block has planning permission then it costs about 30x the cost if it doesn't. The only interests that can afford to buy the land and then go through the incredible cost of getting it zoned are developers, who will probably walk it in anyway because Councils know that they will be turned inside out by litigation and probably loose anyway. Rather than subdivide so that people can live in houses, developers then develop it themselves into cheap 2 bedroom flats with paper thin walls and sell these boxes piled on top of each other for the same cost as an old house in the same area. There is more profit in flat than houses, so houses never get built. By having this control of the land development they also effectively have a cartel that prevents competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Sacks Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Yep! Big developers use something called off site planning gain to influence the council decision. They do a deal where the council get a school, sport centre etc, built at discount or for free in return for planning approval. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dames Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Yep! Big developers use something called off site planning gain to influence the council decision. They do a deal where the council get a school, sport centre etc, built at discount or for free in return for planning approval. Perhaps then, when I get round to applying for pp, I'll offer to tile the council toilets for free. D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 (edited) Actually developers would like nothing better than to build large family houses on greenfield sites in nice locations, this is what people actually want. However they're forced to build grubby little high density shoeboxes on an ex-industrial estates thanks to government dogma and misguided social engineering, add in brownfield policies, density targets, s.106 and the various anti-car measures (with no alternative) and you have design by committee. Of course they've flogged a few of these places to BTL'ers and flippers and this gave the illusion of a market for such properties, hence the fact 'executive apartments' are now over 50% of new building starts, despite the fact very few actually want to live in them (especially so outside of the captial). Of course large developers are also complicit because of the legacy of the 1947 planning act, this has shaped the industry, whilst every other sector in our economy has been liberalised and opened up our planning system is based on the rigid Soviet model (that's not just hyperbole). Developers sit on large landbanks so any openning up of the planning system will devalue their assets, the artificial scarcity model has served them well, however the constraints will eventually eat them alive if left unreformed. It's an unholy marriage of blatant self-interest, Labour governments liked the planning act because of the social engineering and central planning aspects. Originally they envisaged all construction occuring in the public sector and private development would be made unworkable thanks to a 100% planning-gain supplement (tax), this has been recently reintroduced on the pretense of paying for infrastructure. Tory governments liked the act because it kept the unwashed masses out of the countryside and plays well with the NIMBY vote, it also suits the big business interests of major developers. On the biggest mistakes was made in the late 60's when the public were given a voice in the planning process, this was well intended as the imposition of towerblocks and modernism was largely a top-down affair, and people resented this misguided paternalism, especially when towers started falling down of their own accord. Of course, today it's not just the general public commenting but well organised special interest groups that now hold undue influence over the entire planning process, hence the paralysis. For example, the M1 motorway was built without a single public inquiry or consultation, I wouldn't fancy their chances today, it would never be built! Edited March 4, 2006 by BuyingBear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth Posted March 4, 2006 Author Share Posted March 4, 2006 Perhaps then, when I get round to applying for pp, I'll offer to tile the council toilets for free. D Why don't you just offer to buy their toilet block for conversion into luxury studio apartments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Why don't you just offer to buy their toilet block for conversion into luxury studio apartments? Already done, this was on "Call Yourself a Property Developer?", I think they passed in the end, or pis.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboypass Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 SO say you owned a piece of land currently zoned as Arable or woodland - what process would you have to go through to get planning permission? I know of a few friends in Ireland who were left land in a will. They just drew up plans for a property on their land and it was granted.. Is it that easy in the UK?? Obviously the property had to abide by planning regulations and fit in (whatever that fricken means!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 SO say you owned a piece of land currently zoned as Arable or woodland - what process would you have to go through to get planning permission? Pikeyfication. I know of a few friends in Ireland who were left land in a will. They just drew up plans for a property on their land and it was granted.. Is it that easy in the UK?? Nope, you'd have to get it included in the development plan for the areas (UDP), for many areas this may mean you have to wait for a century or two for permission. If you want to build something of some merit there's always Gummer's Law, this was introduced in the dying days of the Major government as a way of creating a new generation of stately homes, but I wouldn't like your chances. Modernist designs seem to get permission though, Bob Marshall Andrews MP managed to build a teletubby home in Pembrokeshire, designed Future Systems (of Selfridges fame). With the modernist option you face problems with the nimbies, ramblers and associated malcontents. The only realistic option is to pikefy a site, then scream racism and human rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth Posted March 4, 2006 Author Share Posted March 4, 2006 Pikeyfication. Nope, you'd have to get it included in the development plan for the areas (UDP), for many areas this may mean you have to wait for a century or two for permission. If you want to build something of some merit there's always Gummer's Law, this was introduced in the dying days of the Major government as a way of creating a new generation of stately homes, but I wouldn't like your chances. Modernist designs seem to get permission though, Bob Marshall Andrews MP managed to build a teletubby home in Pembrokeshire, designed Future Systems (of Selfridges fame). With the modernist option you face problems with the nimbies, ramblers and associated malcontents. The only realistic option is to pikefy a site, then scream racism and human rights. What is pikefy? How do we do it. Actually if it has anything to do with what travellers do, then I reckon you might have a good case in the European Court of Human rights, since although the reasoning behind travellers decisions is 'cultural' its also racist since it allows greater rights and the right to ignore laws to one identifiable ethnic group over all others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Big developers use something called off site planning gain to influence the council decision.They do a deal where the council get a school, sport centre etc, built at discount or for free in return for planning approval. I have mixed views on planning gain (S106 agreements in England). It can be used in a positive way - for example: A large housing development may increase the local population and put pressure on local facilities including schools, clinics etc. An increase in traffic will add to congestion on roads, increase noise, affect air quality. There may be impacts on ecology and the landscape. These legal agreements can be used to pay for measures to mitigate these effects. But planning gain is also a form of tax, even a substitute for rate rises. It can be misused and be seen as a bribe. But here’s a question. Who actually pays for that S106 school? I’m not sure. The housing developer will try and factor in the cost of the S106 i.e. pay less for the land. But if house prices fall their margins will disappear so it adds to their risk. The land owner will get less for their land but of course the land is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. (The landowner and developer may be one and the same, but not always). The house buyer? The additional cost may be passed on the buyer but only if the market will bear it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 (edited) What is pikefy? How do we do it. Actually if it has anything to do with what travellers do, then I reckon you might have a good case in the European Court of Human rights, since although the reasoning behind travellers decisions is 'cultural' its also racist since it allows greater rights and the right to ignore laws to one identifiable ethnic group over all others. Buy some cheap arable land, call in Right Said Fred as our leader and rope in about 50 people off here, get a few transit vans, caravans, a couple of JCB's and a few slags, a handful of bonfires and conjure up a pile of tarmac from no where, hrm... that's about it. Edited March 4, 2006 by BuyingBear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth Posted March 4, 2006 Author Share Posted March 4, 2006 Buy some cheap arable land, call in Right Said Fred as our leader and rope in about 50 people off here, get a few transit vans, caravans, a couple of JCB's and a few slags, a handful of bonfires and conjure up a pile of tarmac from no where, hrm... that's about it. Well I know how to build a pretty rough sort of lean-to with green boughs if that helps! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.